FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Much More Than a Struggle Over a Brand of Rum

Photo by Richard Smallbone | CC BY 2.0

The arguments that have been taking place for years between the French corporation Pernod Ricard and the U.S.-based Bacardi company since shortly after the triumph of the revolution in Cuba are rooted in political realities that far outstrip the apparent battle for the Bacardi and Havana Club rum brands that have lasted for more than half a century.

The controversy derives from the fact that the Cuban popular victory of 1959, which led to the revolution in power on the island, was followed by, among other popular demands, the inescapable commitments made by the rebels to the people. These included agrarian reform, the literacy campaign, the urban reform, the nationalization of public energy, water, and communications services, and the large industries. The government of the revolution set out to agree mutually satisfactory compensatory solutions with those affected and succeeded in almost all cases.

The then-owners of the Bacardi rum company skillfully managed to register the firm in Bermuda and prepared to resist nationalization. They took the documents and individuals of some of the company’s directors from Cuba. But they were unable to extract the talent and the century-old expertise and inventiveness of the humble teachers and other workers who have made the product of their efforts famous. Neither do the characteristics of water, climate, and other irreplaceable elements.

Then there followed an extensive period of legal disputes in which shipments of the original Bacardi rum from Cuba were systematically confiscated for claims that the counterfeiters were making progress, often through bribes and always supported by pressure from Washington.

Finally, the Court in The Hague ruled that the Bacardi firm should retain the right to the Bacardi brand and the bat symbol, but did not admit that the origin of the product was identified as having been made in Cuba since the previous trade name was ‘Bacardi de Cuba’.

Faced with this situation, the real Cuban producers invited the prestigious French liquor company, Pernod Ricard, to form an association to produce in Cuba and distribute its proven rum throughout the world under the name Havana Club. It’s trademark was registered until 1964 in the United States Patent Office by its previous owner, José Arrechabala, who, following the nationalization of its factory, had renounced the trademark and declined to renew it.

The Arechabala family had founded the distillery in the city of Cárdenas in 1878, and in 1934 sold rum under the name Havana Club in the United States, apparently in contravention of the “prohibition” or “dry law” laws then in force there.

With the acquisition of the “Havana Club” brand by the Pernod Ricard/Cuba Ron consortium and the support of an intensive advertising campaign, sales grew significantly in more than 100 countries. Due to the laws of the imperialist blockade of Cuba, the United States remained the only country in the world where Cuban rum could not be sold.

Alarmed by this situation, the Bacardi organization, which in its relationship with Cuba has always been more oriented towards political reprisals than business, opted to prolong the legal battle by focusing on the use of the Havana Club trademark. To that end, Bacardi tried to present itself as a legitimate purchaser of the rights to the Arechabala family’s trademark. “After the Cuban regime confiscated the Arechabala brand without mercy and by force, Ramón Arechabala personally transcribed the recipe and gave it to Bacardi as an agreement between the two families, both exiled from their homeland,” was his desperate and foolish argument.

In 1999, using its political ties in Washington, Bacardi managed to get Congress to approve the so-called Section 211, which allowed it to market under the brand name “Havana Club” in the USA. This ad hoc legislation was condemned by the World Trade Organisation but has allowed Bacardi to sell a fake ‘Havana Club’ made in Puerto Rico in the United States.

The book “Ron Bacardi: The Hidden War” and the documentary “The Secret of the Bat” show the relationship of the Bacardi company with the ultra-right-wing and Cuban-American mafia in Miami. They also reveal the participation of its team of lawyers in the drafting of the Helms-Burton Act. This law, in 1996, codified all the provisions that had formed the economic blockade of Cuba since 1959 into a single legal instrument so that not even a new US President could abrogate the genocidal siege without the approval of Congress (as happened to Barack Obama).

A CubaNews translation by Walter Lippmann.

 

More articles by:

Manuel E. Yepe is a lawyer, economist and journalist. He is a professor at the Higher Institute of International Relations in Havana.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail